Using information theory to search for co-evolving residues in proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Some functionally important protein residues are easily detected since they correspond to conserved columns in a multiple sequence alignment (MSA). However important residues may also mutate, with compensatory mutations occurring elsewhere in the protein, which serve to preserve or restore functionality. It is difficult to distinguish these co-evolving sites from other non-conserved sites. RESULTS: We used Mutual Information (MI) to identify co-evolving positions. Using in silico evolved MSAs, we examined the effects of the number of sequences, the size of amino acid alphabet and the mutation rate on two sources of background MI: finite sample size effects and phylogenetic influence. We then assessed the performance of various normalizations of MI in enhancing detection of co-evolving positions and found that normalization by the pair entropy was optimal. Real protein alignments were analyzed and co-evolving isolated pairs were often found to be in contact with each other. AVAILABILITY: All data and program files can be found at http://www.biochem.uwo.ca/cgi-bin/CDD/index.cgi
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".